Chennai Court November 1963 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re : A.M.M. Sathakathullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ306
Kailasam, J.1. The second accused in C.C No. 5118 of 1962, on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, is the appellant. He was tried for an offence under Section 23(1A)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, in that he was knowingly concerned in the importation of gold and wrist watches without a valid permit on 8.8.1961 at Madras. He was found guilty under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and sentenced to six months-rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250.2. P.W. 1, the Preventive officer attached to the Customs Department, was on duty on 10.8.1961 on board S.S. Rajula. He noticed a cook on board the ship (who was tried as the first accused) moving in a suspicious manner. P.W. 1 questioned him. When he was searched, it was found that he had on his person four bars of gold. When the canteen was searched, a garlic bag containing 90 pieces of wrist watches was recovered.3. P.W. 1, the Rummaging Inspector, questioned the first accused, and the first accused made...
India Nutriments Ltd. Represented by A-2 and anr. Vs. the Registrar of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ158
P. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. These two Revision Cases arise out of orders passed by the Second Presidency Magistrate under Sections 220(1) and 159 of the Indian Companies Act (1 of 1956). The first petitioner is the Indian Nutriments Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the second petitioner, as the sole proprietor of South Indian Traders, is its Managing Agent. He did not file with the Registrar of Companies the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the first petitioner Company for the financial year ending with 30th June, 1958, or the annual return as required under the Act in spite of several reminders by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioners and the other two Directors of the Company (accused 3 and 4) were, therefore, prosecuted for the default. The learned Second Presidency Magistrate found A-3 and A-4 not culpable. But he found the petitioners guilty of the omission, convicted them and sentenced each of them in both the cases to a fine of Rs. 25...
In Re: A.M.M. Sathakathullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ239
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The 2nd accused in C.C. No. 5118 of 1962 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, is the appellant. he was tried for an offence under Section 23(1-A)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, in that he was knowinly concerned in the importation of gold and wrist watches without a valid permit on 8th August, 1961 a Madras. He was found guily under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250.2. P.W. 1, the Preventive Officer attached to the Customs Department, was on duty on 10th August, 1961 on board S.S. Rajula. He noticed a cook on board the ship (who was tried as the 1st accused) moving in a suspicious manner P.W. 1 questioned him. When he was searched, it was found that he had on his, person four bars of gold. When the canteen was searched, a garlic bag containing 90 pieces of wrist watches was recovered.3. P.W. 2, the Rummaging Inspector, questioned the 1st accused, and the 1st ac...
P.P.M.S. Nagarathnam Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad192; (1965)ILLJ84Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Cigar Company. This business has been in existence from prior to 1955. Originally, the premises was licensed under the Factories Act, but after, certain decisions relevant to businesses of this kind the premises was removed from the list of factories. Two persons claiming to have been employed as workers in the petitioner's business complained that their services had been improperly dispensed with. The Cigar Workers' Union took up their cause and moved the Labour Officer, Virudhunagar, in that regard. The petitioner contended that there was no relationship of master and servant, that the nature of the employment was such that such relationship could not be postulated, and denied the existence of any industrial dispute. The Labour Officer made a report to the Government and the Government, by G. O. Rt. No. 1048 dated 24th June 1963, made a reference to the Labour Court, Madurai, Under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes...
M. Ramasubbu Vs. the Proprietor, Rani Motor Works and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad462; (1964)ILLJ249Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner herein preferred an application Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Madurai, claiming notice pay and retrenchment compensation Under Section 25-F of the Act. The first respondent, the proprietor of the business in which the petitioner had been employed, sought permission to engage a counsel to represent him in 'he proceedings. The petitioner objected, as he himself was not represented by the counsel and did not accord his consent to the engagement of counsel by the first respondent employer. The Labour Court, however, made an order to the. effect that the claim Under Section 33-C(2) is totally different from a dispute, that the two meant two different things and that, therefore, the expression 'dispute' which appears in Section 36(3) and (4) of the Act, which relates to representations of parties, does not include a claim. The Labour Court was thus of the view that the prohibition against employment of legal...
E.C.P. Rathinaswami Nadar Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ303
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Labour Court, Madurai holding that there was no retrenchment of the worker involved which would give him any rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, be quashed as erroneous in law.2. The petitioner was in the employ of the 2nd respondent management. He claimed by a petition under Section 33(c) that he was entitled to retrenchment compensation. The respondent management denied the claim contending that there was no retrenchment at all but that the petitioner voluntarily stayed away. According to the evidence let in by the management, the petitioner had been in the employ of the management for over 30 years. He however did not choose to do the work in a particular capacity as accountant when duties of that nature were assigned to him. That is said to be the reason why he voluntarily stayed away. The question which the Labour Court had to consider was whether the petitioner wa...
S. Chokalingam Asari Vs. N.S. Krishna Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad404
Ramamurti, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of restitution proceedings in O. S. No. 37 of 1951, Sub-Court, Madurai. The first respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The second respondent is the decree-holder-purchaser and the appellant is a purchaser from the decree-holder-purchaser.2. The second respondent filed the suit, O. S. No. 37 of 1951, to recover a sum of nearly Rs. 9050 as due to him in respect of two loans, Rs. 6000 and Rs. 2000 respectively and obtained a decree for that sum together with subsequent interest on .18-11.1952. The first respondent herein, the debtor, filed an appeal to this Court in A. S. No. 174 of 1953 (Mad) and during the pendency of the appeal, it appears, the debtor paid several sums on various dates in all amounting to Rs. 3500, but he did not completely comply with the conditions subject to which stay of execution was ordered by the High Court. The decree, holder therefore pursued his execution petition and purchased the properties himself ...
Chinnayyan Vs. R. Nagarathinam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ389
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question regarding the power of the Revenue Court functioning under the Madras Cultivating Tenants. Protection Act to pass a self-contained and conditional order for eviction. The respondent, the owner of certain agricultural lands, sought the eviction of the petitioner, his cultivating tenant, on the ground that the latter had defaulted in the due payment of rent. The petitioner admitted that he was in arrears and promised to pay up the same by 12th March, 1963. A joint memorandum to that effect signed by the landlord as well as by the tenant was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. On that memorandum the Court passed an order under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act directing the respondent (Petitioner herein) to deposit in Court the amount of arrears on or before 12th March, 1963 failing which the tenant was to be evicted.2. The contention of Mr. G. Nagarajan, Advocate for the petitioner is that such...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›